Breaking: EPA announcing ruling on California waiver at 6:30 Eastern

The EPA just sent out an email advisory saying that Administrator Stephen Johnson will announce the agency’s decision on the California air standards waiver … in about 30 minutes. (Background on the waiver issue here, here, and here.)

The lack of lead time might lead one to believe that they want to bury this news. Which might lead one to believe that they’re going to deny California the waiver. Boxer and Waxman have both said they expect that outcome.

“Could you clarify your estimate on what the Calif. standard would require, mpg wise?”

Johnson: 33mpg by 2016.

“How did the professional staff advise you?”

Johnson: I literally had hours upon hours of briefings and discussion. (Wow!) My staff provided me a “range of options,” with lots of “pros and cons,” and “based upon their input and what the Clean Air Act” describes, I denied the waiver.

“People in Calif. say their standard is more stringent than the new federal standard.”

“Any consideration given to a partial waiver, given that car companies said they could meet the standards soon? And what should other states do, who want to protect themselves from global warming?”

Johnson: I considered the option, yes. (Well, that was blunt.) As to what states can do, well, now we have a national standard, so deliver the national standard. Implement today’s law. (Is the implication here seriously that states who meet this modest CAFE boost are thereby protected against climate change?)

“We’ve got 17 states, with roughly half the nation’s population, ready to go. What are you going to do on a national level to fight global warming?”

Johnson: Today’s legislation achieves greatest greenhouse gas reductions in history of the U.S. It implements what we were preparing to do from a regulation perspective. (So, that’s it — the EPA’s job is done, according to Johnson.)

“Boxer has said she’ll work to overturn this legislatively. Comment on that?”

“CEOs of Ford and Chrysler met with the VP last month. Did anyone from the White House talk to you about this decision?”

Johnson: It was independent. (Questioner gets cut off.)

“What is the harm in approving the waiver?”

Johnson: It didn’t meet the statutory requirements under CAA 209. From a policy perspective, the national policy is better than a partial state-by-state approach. This applies to all 50 states. (Who cares what you think about policy, Johnson? The Supreme Court told you to regulate. Oy.)